Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010142972025 2025:GAU-AS:9164 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2161/2025 MUSTAFAM AHMED LASKAR S/O LT. LT. SAJ UDDIN LASKAR VILL- BOALIPAR PT.II P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, MS A BEGUM,MS S R MAZARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 16.07.2025 Heard Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for releasing the accused/petitioner on regular bail in connection with Pachgram P. S. Case No. 23/2025, registered under Sections 113(3)/197(1)/352/353 of BNS, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 200/2025. 3. Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the accused/petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He submits that it was, in fact, the minor son of the petitioner who mistakenly shared the objectionable video that was posted on Facebook. He further submits that the accused/petitioner is a government employee, a responsible person, and that he never shared such a video intentionally. The act, if any, may have been committed mistakenly by his minor son. 5. He also submits that, as per the FIR, the informant came across the shared post on the petitioner’s Facebook account on 09.05.2025, but the FIR was lodged nearly one month later, on 04.06.2025. Consequently, the accused/petitioner was arrested on 05.06.2025. It is further submitted that, till date, there has been no report of any communal clash or public unrest as a result of the post, and the FIR was lodged merely on the basis of the Page No.# 3/4 informant’s apprehension. 6. It is also submitted that the accused/petitioner, upon realizing the mistake committed by his minor son, immediately deleted the objectionable video and did not share it further. The accused/petitioner has been in custody since 05.06.2025, and thus, the Investigating Officer got sufficient opportunity to interrogate him. He further submits that the accused/petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the I.O in the further course of investigation, if granted the privilege of regular bail. 7. In response, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the accused/petitioner. It is contended that the accused/petitioner himself had shared an objectionable video, wherein even the Hon’ble Prime Minister was abused. The video, being provocative in nature, was allegedly shared with the intention of creating hatred among citizens, potentially causing public unrest, violating the law, and diverting attention from Pakistan’s involvement in terrorist activities, particularly in connection with the Pahalgam incident. It is further submitted that the investigation is still ongoing and other culprits are yet to be apprehended, and as such, the State opposes the prayer for bail at this stage. 8. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and upon perusal of the Case Diary, particularly the materials relating to the sharing of the objectionable Facebook post, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner may be necessary in the interest of investigation. Accordingly, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for grant of bail at this stage, and the bail application stands rejected 9. In terms of above, this Bail Application stands disposed of. Page No.# 4/4 10. Let the Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant